Effects of methylphenidate on basic and higher-order oculomotor functions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eye movements are sensitive indicators of pharmacological effects on sensorimotor and cognitive processing. Methylphenidate (MPH) is one of the most prescribed medications in psychiatry. It is increasingly used as a cognitive enhancer by healthy individuals. However, little is known of its effect on healthy cognition. Here we used oculomotor tests to evaluate the effects of MPH on basic oculomotor and executive functions. Twenty-nine males were given 20mg of MPH orally in a double-blind placebo-controlled crossover design. Participants performed visually-guided saccades, sinusoidal smooth pursuit, predictive saccades and antisaccades one hour post-capsule administration. Heart rate and blood pressure were assessed prior to capsule administration, and again before and after task performance. Visually-guided saccade latency decreased with MPH (p<0.004). Smooth pursuit gain increased on MPH (p<0.001) and number of saccades during pursuit decreased (p<0.001). Proportion of predictive saccades increased on MPH (p<0.004), specifically in conditions with predictable timing. Peak velocity of predictive saccades increased with MPH (p<0.01). Antisaccade errors and latency were unaffected. Physiological variables were also unaffected. The effects on visually-guided saccade latency and peak velocity are consistent with MPH effects on dopamine in basal ganglia. The improvements in predictive saccade conditions and smooth pursuit suggest effects on timing functions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".